The Case For Voter ID

The Case For Voter ID

Here are some facts from the 2012 election that have a direct bearing on voter ID.

To date, 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud. More than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, yet remain on the rolls nation-wide. Here is some of the break down on that fact: There are over 1.8 million dead voters still eligible on the rolls across the country. According to one source it is estimated that Harry Reid has won his last three election solely because of the dead and non-resident voters. If you look at the poll number going into the elections, each time he was behind by several point according to those voters who were actually living at the time; however, he always celebrated the win election night. I was surprised to learn that I was still a registered voter in Clark County, Nevada and I haven’t been back there for over twenty years. Was being the operative word.

More than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state. Many of these are being voted by others, because of the lack of proof of identity at the polls. Just tell the poll worker the name you are using and enter into the booth to cast a vote.

True The Vote recently found 99 cases of potential felony interstate voter fraud.

12 Indiana counties have more registered voters than residents.

The Ohio Secretary of State admitted that multiple Ohio counties have more registered voters than residents.

Federal records showed 160 counties in 19 states have over 100 percent voter registration.

Just one example of voter fraud comes from Pennsylvania where four counties had ZERO republican voters even though they did have a substantial republican voter registration. Mitt Romney received ZERO votes in those counties. One might suspect that to be highly improbable.

The arguments against voter I.D. are specious to say the least. The single most valid reason against requiring voter id is to continue to allow corrupt politicians to win elections without the necessary popular support. My mind automatically hears any politician rant against a voter ID law he is admitting that he probably couldn’t win if it was enacted.

On the other hand just how popular is Voter ID?
• 74 percent of Americans support, according to The Washington Post.
• 71 percent of Latinos support it, according to the PEW Research Center.

Enough said.


The Purpose of Government

The Purpose of Government

I had promised you that my next blog would be about the democrat ‘White Paper’ defending that abomination called the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.

That isn’t going to happen. I will post that blog, but at a later date.

Today I want to briefly discuss the purpose of Government as our founding fathers and many of our current citizens intend it should be. The first point is the purpose of the constitution.

When you read the constitution, really read it, it is easy to see that our government was intended to serve its citizens. It was never intended that the citizens should serve the government. So, the Constitution was not written to reign in the behavior of the people, but rather to restrain the behavior of their government. The proof of this is rampant in every article of the constitution and in the Bill of Rights. There are so many examples I don’t really know where to start much less where to stop. The Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Our politicians have either forgotten that or are so enamoured with their own power they just don’t care.

One of the beauties of the constitution and the bill of rights is their simplicity. Short and to the point.  Many of the amendments are one simple sentence just like the Tenth. Try the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Take a look at that second comma phrase – “… being necessary to the security of a free state, …”. Not much ambiguity there.

I often quote Thomas Jefferson as he said so much that reflected the purpose and vision of his contemporaries regarding that amazing document – our constitution. Here are two things he said; “When Government fears the people there is liberty.  When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”

Thomas Jefferson

And “What Country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.”

Thomas Jefferson

Those quotes might be better served if they were carved in stone and irrevocably attached to each legislators desk. Then there was Noah Webster saying “If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted … If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”  Kind of sounds like todays government, doesn’t?

I refer you to the Federalist Papers number one page one written by Alexander Hamilton (No, T Jefferson didn’t write any of them) when he begins by defining the purpose of the then proposed constitution.

At the risk of repeating myself – the Constitution was not written to reign in the behavior of the people, but rather to restrain the behavior of their government.


Obamacare: Fact vs Fiction

This blog was suggested by a form letter from a United States Senator that contained so many lies, misconceptions and misleading statements that I felt someone had to respond. I guess I am that someone. The form letter came from that paragon of Alzheimer’s, Senator Rockefeller (D)WV. I guess I should show you the letter in its entirety:

Dear ******,

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the repeal of the health care reform law. I know there are a lot of questions about this new law, and I appreciate this opportunity to be in touch.

In March 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive health reform legislation that will reduce health care costs, improve access to care, and stop health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with per-existing health conditions. The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits to small businesses that provide coverage to their employees, makes prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, and beginning in 2014, provides millions of dollars in premium tax credits to help individuals and working families in West Virginia buy coverage through a competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace. Additionally, the health reform law adds eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund. According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years.

My vote for comprehensive health reform came after years and years of listening to West Virginians who could not afford the health care they needed – with devastating health and financial consequences.  I truly believe that no state has more to gain from health reform than West Virginia, and I will continue to closely monitor its implementation and make it work for our state and our people.

Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the House of Representatives has voted to repeal it completely, or in part, more than 30 times – while offering no alternative plan. These efforts were continued in the Senate by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. On February 2, 2011, Minority Leader McConnell brought the repeal vote to the Senate floor through an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act (S. 223). The health reform repeal vote in the Senate failed by a vote 47 to 51. I voted against the McConnell amendment.

The health reform law is not perfect – no law is – and it does not address every concern. We can and must monitor health care reform carefully, listen to American families and businesses, and fix whatever doesn’t work. But wholesale repeal of health care reform would take away important benefits for West Virginians.

According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, repealing the health reform law would add $109 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, while keeping it in place would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years. Repeal would reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by 8 years, making it insolvent by 2016. Repeal would also raise seniors’ prescription drug costs, deny health care to sick people, take away tax breaks for small businesses, and put health insurance companies back in charge of decisions that should be made by doctors and patients. The stakes are too high – for every patient, for every family, for every business struggling with health care costs – not to move forward.

I have attached a fact sheet for your reference on what repeal of the health care law would mean for West Virginians. To learn more about the new health reform law, please visit  If you do not have a computer in your home, you may access the Internet at your local public library, free of charge.

As we continue implementation of this new law, your views and experiences will be critically important to me. Thank you again for contacting me. I wish you the very best.

With Warm Regards,
Jay Rockefeller

I will attempt to address each of the highlighted areas with both my own thoughts and those of officials both in and outside the beltway.

The first of these: ”legislation that will reduce health care costs, improve access to care “ Let me tell you of some friends of mine that live a good life on the shores of Lake Erie in Ohio. Once Obamacare was passed their insurance tripled! Tripled! Two people, no children and their insurance premiums tripled! Obama and the Democrats promised that insurance rates for the average American family would decrease by $2500.00 when in fact, according to the GAO those same families are facing an average increase of $2585.00 per year. More of an increase than the promised decrease was supposed to be. Then there are the over three million Americans whose insurance has been canceled, including an estimated 10,500 right in the Senator’s home state of West Virginia. I personally have had three physicians refuse to accept medicare and medicaid because of the new regulations. Yet this man has the audacity to claim it “will reduce health care costs,improve access to care.” He doesn’t seem to live in the same world I do.

Next: provides millions of dollars in premium tax credits to help individuals and working families in West Virginia buy coverage through a competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace. Yes, there is a provision to grant tax credit to certain FEW that qualify. One thing though – the tax credit does not cover the increased costs they are facing. And then there are all of the people that simply don’t qualify for the tax credits, but do qualify for the fee of “the greater of $750.00 or 2% of their income” starting in 2014 if you do not sign up for Obamacare. And as we know, many people simply can’t sign up. A decent living wage in these times might be $50,000. 2% of that is $1,000.00 so there aren’t many that would be charged only $750.00 and those that are, certainly can’t afford to pay it, yet the cost of insurance under this law is even more with the so called tax credits.

Now about that “competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace” – we have all seen the news about the vast number of insurance companies that are refusing to enter it. Note the 3 plus million canceled policies. Competitive marketplace indeed.

Next: “the health reform law adds eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund. “ This one is, at least in part, true. It is done in a very simple manner. They gutted medicare. It has nothing to do with Obamacare other than as a way to slow the deficit created by it. Know anybody on SSI? They are having their benefits cut over the next few years to help pay for Obamacare. Remember the fact that medicare benefits have decreased already. Well, unless you are an illegal.

Next: “According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years.”

The first point here is the reference to the so called “independent Congressional Budget Office is the budget office congresspeople like to site when the Government Accounting Office (GAO) doesn’t give the information the way they want it. Remember the old adage that figures don’t lie but liars figure? The GAO takes into account more of the actual costs of implementing and maintaining the AFA and they are estimating that the budget will increase by somewhere in the neighborhood of one trillion dollars over the next ten years because of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. Reduce the deficit indeed.

Next: Repeal would also raise seniors’ prescription drug costs, deny health care to sick people, take away tax breaks for small businesses, and put health insurance companies back in charge of decisions that should be made by doctors and patients.

There four parts to this one. The first regards seniors drug costs. Yep they would go up! About double! And that is an example of liars figuring. The cost for a generic prescription would, possibly, go from $2.00 to $4.00. True statement. I am on medicare and have the requisite prescription coverage and my costs are accurately reflected in the above statement.

The second is the denying of health care to sick people. Under Obamacare more people are denied health care than ever before. Just take a glance at your local news show every day. (If it isn’t one of the mainstream liberal stations. They tend to ignore all negative Obamacare news.) Third is tax breaks for small businesses. This one sounds like the used car dealer that raises his prices then puts the cars on sale. Let’s see now… how many new taxes did Obamacare create? I lost count around a dozen so I don’t really have an answer for you, but I have a hunch that if Obamacare were repealed we would all save on taxes, not just small businesses.

The last is putting health care decisions in the hands of insurance companies. OK. Some HMOs were guilty of this one for a while, but soon learned that was not a profitable way to do business. The attorneys and all those law suits might have had something to do with it.

All of the ills with the old health care could be fixed with two new laws. Insurance companies have no power to make health decisions for its clients by denying coverage for medically necessary procedures and they must grant coverage for pre-existing conditions. This last would cause a slight rise in rates, but spread over all of the insured that rise should be relatively painless, unlike the rate increases caused by Obamacare.

The last two I will take only a short paragraph for my response. The so-called Fact sheet from the senate Democrats I will deal with in a separate blog. Believe me that one deserves a blog all by its self.


Problems and Solutions Part Two

Problems and Solutions


Part Two






My last post attempted to define some of the solutions to this country’s multifarious problems. I made a half hearted attempt to define some of the problems and ran out of steam after just mentioning the current administration and his minions in the senate. I usually get angry at my country for allowing this turn of events that is destroying the country I grew up in and fought for in wars some didn’t even know were happening. That is why I stopped with the causes of our problems without delineating the problems themselves. Many know the problems while others will never admit to them. Flagrant violations of our nations patently great Constitution. We are in a country the writers and founders of that constitution never foresaw, indeed could not foresee. In that light I have decided not to attempt such delineations other than to point out a president that has ”a phone and a pen” so he doesn’t need a congress to rule his kingdom. Let us therefore move onto the last two of the four solutions we were discussing.


Next on our list is the most nefarious. The Constitutional Convention. This is the ideal solution to people like George Soros and the ultra liberal in our land. You see a Constitutional Convention is called with the intent of writing a entirely new constitution. These ultra liberals are so intent on not having an Article V convention called that they are willfully stating that the Article V is indeed a constitutional convention capable of rewriting the constitution. Folks that just isn’t so. In point of fact, an Article V Convention cannot rewrite the constitution.


However, ‘They’ would like to see more constitutional power in the executive branch. My father had a saying that he felt defined the American Dream. “Your rights end at the beginning of my nose.” What he meant by that is simple. In his domain, house, property, business, whatever, you had no rights he didn’t grant you. Who is the ‘you”? Any entity from a single human being to a government. If he had a wife and kids those rights automatically extended to them. The same for his neighbors and their neighbors. Should he choose to own a gun, that was no one’s business but his and his family. If that family decided they liked a certain Dr. that too was their business and no one had the right to interfere with that relationship. In order to protect those rights we relied on the Constitution. We relied on a government that was established specifically to protect the rights of the individual, not to enhance the power of tyrant wannabes. The government’s job used to be to protect me from you! If you tried to use your gun or your fist or your baseball bat against me, the government was supposed to punish you for that. Now expand that ‘you ; to nations or states or simply mobs. They were supposed to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate. That clause in the Constitution was and is intended for the purpose of facilitating commerce, not to control it.


OK. I hope you get the idea. Our constitution certainly needs to be ‘tweeked’ a little in the light of the omnipresent evil in present day politicians, but it does NOT need to be scrapped. We neither want nor need a new constitution.




The brings us to the last of the possible solutions. The Article V Constitutional Convention. The first thing you should noticed is that it is an Article V measure, taken directly from our Constitution.  It is a measure provided for us by our founding fathers to protect us from that which they could not imagine, but feared in their unknown future.


Their next problem was to prevent what has become known as a run away convention. They did this in several ways. The first was the one state one vote rule. If you look at the way national elections are won you must look at the populations of the various states. New York, California, Florida, Ohio, etc. They carry the national elections. Not the majority of the states by any means. The majority of states in our union are conservative. Look at one of the media networks political maps. So one state one vote. California has no more power in an Article V Convention of States than Rhode Island.


The next was the so called super majority idea. Two thirds of the states or 34, must agree on the same enacted law to call for the convention before it can happen. Once the convention has been called any amendment that falls within the topic of the laws used to call that convention may be debated. In other words if the convention is called to limit the power of the federal government, rein in the fiscal abilities of both congress and the executive branch, and limit terms of federal officials such as congress and the judiciary are fair game. However, let’s say an amendment that would limit the authority of the states such as say abortion or marriage, those would have to be denied by the convention. So what are some of these tweeks? Take a look at a small amendment to the Welfare Clause. If you add a phrase similar to this: “If the states can spend money on it the Federal government is prohibited from doing so” then things like Obamare are gone. Legalizing homosexual or polygamous marriage? Gone with the repeal of the 14th amendment. That is up to the states.


And now this decision is not up to the states. It is up to you.










Problems and Solutions

Problems and Solutions


Part One




The United States of America is having some problems. We have a sitting president that doesn’t think the Constitution is worth the paper it is written on. He suffers from a form of mental disease called Psychotic Narcissism and has been so diagnosed by no less than three world renowned psychologists This is the same disease Hitler and Stalin suffered from. People with this mental disorder are absolutely positive that they are right! No one can tell them any different. They know it with a certainty borne out of a profound and incurable mental disorder.


Then of course we have the senate led with an iron fist by a Nevadan that was most likely illegally elected. The incomparable and unique Harry Reid. I certainly hope he is unique and that there is no one that compares with him. He is an evil man. He has become completely taken over by the hunger for power. He has no concern nor care about anyone other than himself and the power he can hold.


These among other items have led The United States of America to the very brink of becoming a second rate nation ruled by an uncaring government that knows the way to keep power. Destroy liberty.


OK. So those are my interpretations of some of the causes of the problems we, the people of this country, face both as individuals and as a sovereign nation. Now comes the question; how can we fight this take over of our country.


There are a lot of people coming up with their own pet ideas. Some of them need no discussion here as they are farcical on their face. I shall limit this narrative to the four most discussed and attempt to shed some light on their good and bad points. These, for my purpose here are:


  1. Nullification

  2. Sovereignty

  3. Constitutional Convention

  4. An Article V Convention of States.


This series will discuss each of these in order. Any attempt on my part to condense them into one posting has proven futile. So stay tuned folks, you pet theory is coming along with extensive research for and against it.  Which is going to come out on top?




Nullification is defined as to render or declare legally void or inoperative: to nullify a contract or (2) to deprive (something) of value or effectiveness; make futile or of no consequence.


Constitutional nullification is the legal principle that any federal enactment which is not “made in Pursuance” of the Constitution under Article VI, Clause 2 is ipso facto null and void.


The first real test of nullification came during Andrew Jackson’s administration in 1832 when South Carolina enacted the “Ordinance of Nullification”. This is the only instance that I could find that was at least partially successful. South Carolina repealed the Ordinance of Nullification in 1833 after a compromise was reached. There have been over a hundred attempts at states nullifying federal laws from the slave laws through the current administration. More recently, a nullification effort was successful when several states passed state laws against a regulation. Note this was not a law passed by congress. It was a regulation by a government agency, one which was not even popular with the Dems in congress. Of the over one hundred so called nullifications that have been attempted since the founding of our constitutional state, none have been successful. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that this is the method you are most fond of and think it is the method the entire country should adopt. Just what would that entail? There are thousands of improper federal laws. Assuming 2,000 improper federal laws, it defies common sense to believe that this would be possible even for one state much less a significant majority of the states. Nullification is an attempt to apply over 2000 Band-Aids. What we need for the blood letting being carried out by our overly liberal government is an application of a broad spectrum antibiotic and Band-Aids have no antibiotic at all. So. It doesn’t look like nullification is a viable option. Let’s move on to the magic land of “Sovereignty”.




Sovereign. A majestic word. It is a word that is not in the Constitution of the United States. It means, basically, decision maker. The dictionary defines the noun as:


1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.

2. a person who has supreme power or authority.


3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.




The adjective is defined as:

5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereign authority; royal.

6. having supreme rank, power, or authority.


7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.


8. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme.


9. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc.




I can’t find out where the concept of sovereignty came from where it concerns reforming our government. Since being sovereign means making the decisions just who is going to be sovereign? Well, many of the people I have talked with that are calling for sovereignty have stated that each individual is inherently ‘sovereign’; that the states are ‘obviously’ sovereign. All we have to do is declare that sovereignty and then follow through by actually being sovereign. I know, it doesn’t make all that much sense to me either. If everybody is really sovereign; if everybody has the power to make decisions; that is the definition of anarchy. If it is the states that are sovereign then there is no central government and each state is on their own. If Ohio decides that they don’t like a new law enacted in Illinois, they would have the power to bar all Illinois citizens and products from the state. Everybody from Illinois that was in Ohio on vacation would be breaking the law and subject to arrest. Then Virginia decides that West Virginia should never have been born and decides to take it back into Virginia. So war breaks out. Why not? Since each state is sovereign they would have their own military. Yep Anarchy. Enough said.


Comments, condemnations are encouraged and will be responded to IF you have facts to back up your position. Rants are usually good for a laugh, though. Questions are also encouraged,


The next Blog will discuss the Constitutional Convention and the Article V Convention of States.


See you then.













Legislator lack of comon sense

Short sighted State legislators are the bane of both freedom and common sense. There is an honest, workable, safe proposal out there to bring the power of government back into their hands and they don’t seem to want it. I can understand the Federal legislators fighting to keep the power in their grimy greedy little hands as well as the DNC, but state legislators refusing it? WOW. I have never known a politician to refuse power and I have been involved in politics almost from birth.

Ok, so what is the proposal?

The Convention of States (COS) project is designed to return the power of governance to the state legislators where it was intended to be and was until the 14th and 17th amendments were passed. It is a project to implement an Article V convention of states. Notice! This is not a Constitutional Convention. That would be called to scrap the existing one and write a new one and as much as the George Soros ilk would love to see that, I doubt it has a chance.

This project is unlike anything ever that has occurred before before in that it makes use one of the two methods of calling a COS. The first is the Congress of the United States calling a convention to propose an amendment as was the case in the 21rst to repeal prohibition. The second method of calling an Article V COS is for the state legislators to call one. It is my understanding that there has been over 500 attempts to do this since the original constitution was ratified. None have succeeded due to the strict procedure that must be followed. The state legislators in 34 states must propose the same continuing resolution or bill, depending on the state, containing the same language, before it can become fact.

In the past this has never happened because the states didn’t get together on the wording.

The current project eliminates that by submitting a resolution to every state legislature containing the same language. The REALLY unique thing about this project is the concept. It is proposing a COS to address a topic not a single amendment. It will consider ONLY those amendments that limit the power of the federal government, reign in spending on the federal level and impose term limits on congress. Nothing else can even be considered. Each state attending a COS has one vote. Be it California or be it Rhode Island; one vote.

Then 38 states must ratify it for any or all to become law. These three things effectively prevent a runaway convention. Can you imagine 38 states passing some wild, inane amendment?

I really have to wonder if those state legislators that oppose this have any concept of the representational part of their job. It seems that the ones I have talked to that opose this idea are much more interested in serving their national party line than they are with representing their constituents.

You might want to ask your state legislators where they stand and WHY?

For that matter, now that you know more about the facts, where do you stand and why?

For more information on this project drop by their web site. I found some very interesting reading on it. Click here: Convention Of States

The Convention of States project

      You know that I am deeply involved in the non-partisan Convention of States projects from my other posts.  Today I would like to re post a blog written by Bob Menges.  I  Strongly suggest you read his blog and tour his site for even more information.  The link to his site:


The 226 Year Old Message From Col. George Mason

Permit me to share a very Important Constitutional history lesson with you. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had been going over every section of every article in the final months of the Convention in 1787. 226 years ago, on a Saturday, just two days before the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia completed its work, we find a gem in the notes of James Madison, who took extensive notes just about every day of the convention. This item that I refer to as a “gem” is little known and hardly talked about today. On September 15, 1787, George Mason of Virginia (referred to in Madison’s notes as Col Mason), was alarmed that in the text of Article V (the provision for making Amendments to the Constitution), Congress would have sole power to propose amendments; Mason insisted, as he did earlier in June, that the states have authority to call for conventions. Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments necessary to restrain a rogue, tyrannical legislature. “Col: MASON thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).

To make sense of that, you must understand that earlier in the summer when the issue of even having an Amendment process was first brought up as a provision in the Constitution, many of the delegates thought it unnecessary. Madison’s notes record the following on June 11th: “Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision [Amendments]. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account…”.

By the time the convention reached its final days in mid September, the Amendment provision had been added as Article V, and the provision had two methods; the national legislature (Congress) could propose Amendments and Congress could call for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments. However, both methods were left in the hands (power) of the national legislature, that’s what Mason meant when he referred in the first quote above as “both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress”. Mason had objected to this back in June and now as the convention drew to a close, he rose to his feet to forcefully object with his reasons stated above (“It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”). Madison’s notes of 15 Sept tell us that Mason’s motion was accepted and the language was changed in order to require [mandate] Congress to call a convention upon application of 2/3 of the states.

It is noteworthy to point out that this process does not call for a Constitutional Convention; the language specifies calling a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments”…to the existing Constitution…it would still require 3/4ths of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposed in this convention.

We owe George Mason and the other framers a huge debt for this…they had the foresight to understand first of all, that we needed an orderly process in which to amend our Constitution (“regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence” – Mason 11 June). Secondly we owe them a huge debt for recognizing and understanding the depravity of man and the extremely intoxicating effects of years of power in the hands of the same people (hence a need for term limits) and that these power intoxicated occupants of the United States Congress would “abuse their power, and refuse their consent” (Mason 11 June) to any amendments that would “injure” themselves and return powers never intended for the national legislature or any of the other branches for that matter, they would never take steps to return that power on their own to the rightful owner, the states/people (“no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive” – Mason 15 Sep).

The least we can do as citizens of this great nation today, citizens that do not seem to want to be bothered with taking the time to understand the underpinnings of their liberty, the least we can do is take the time to understand what the framers of this amazing document did for us. When the framers agreed on September 15th, 1787 to change the text in Article V, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2013, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution, a way back to what Thomas Jefferson called the “chains of the Constitution”.

What Can You Do?